They were worth 1.5 million, now worth 15 million and Mick only spent 35
million.
G & Ts all round and send Mick’s CV to Barca.
 
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Steven Millward
Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2012 4:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Decision
 
It's true. If you had hired Mick's equivalent in a normal business he would
have been seen as a huge success.  I wonder what the net outlay on players
is compared to the value they have now?  Jarvis and Kightly must have made
Wolves ten million alone.
 
Time for a spreadsheet.
 
I would have told him to get bent if I was Mick.  You can't ask someone to
sign an agreement like in return for their termination pay.  Or was it an
extra million pounds?
On 10 April 2012 14:36, mark worrall <[email protected]> wrote:
Saw an interview with Moxey on weekend and he was saying that the players at
the club are worth 10 times what they were when MM arrived thanks to MM. 
 
And there wont be any tell all from MM. He was back at the club a couple of
weeks ago to sign his confidentiality contract in return for £1m. SM learnt
something from SJH.
 
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Steven Millward <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is a second question here, and that's was the money spent on players
and wages enough to survive in the Premier League for more than three
seasons?  If yes, then it's McCarthy's fault, if he sanctioned every player.
If not then it's Morgan and Moxey's fault for not spending enough.  There
have been quite a few players that have failed at Wolves in the Prem but
they were mostly small budget buys and the money was made up on selling on.

 
Apparently it was in Johnson's contract that he be captain.  I wonder if
Mick sanctioned that?  Doesn't sound like the sort of thing he'd do, but
more of a Moxey move in the contract negotiations to save a few quid.
 
I can't wait for Mick's autobiography to find out what really happened.  I'm
sure there have been a lot of odd dealings.  I still believe that we'd have
picked up more points under Mick, as the whole episode has been very
destabilising for the players.
 
Was talking to a few friends on the weekend and every one of them thought it
was a bad move getting rid of Mick and that he'd built a good side on little
money.
On 10 April 2012 11:49, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote:
But TC has simply demonstrated that the players brought in by McCarthy
aren't up to the task of playing I the premier league. TC is trying to flog
a dead horse that was of McCarthy's making. Mick had lost the ability to
motivate his troops to continue performing above their ability and by
appointing Johnson as the captain he effectively divided the team. Those
actions are not the hallmarks of a successful manager and we would still be
in the same position if mick were still here. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 10/04/2012, at 11:41, mark worrall <[email protected]> wrote:
NO 
 
At least we had a fighting chance then. Now it needs a miracle.
 
Sad thing is, even if TC did miraculously keep us up, he'll still be pushed
aside for a name manager next season regardless.
 
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Parkes Jim - Sydney-MHA
<[email protected]> wrote:
YES
 

  _____  

 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Steven Millward
Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:31 AM
To: nswolves
Subject: [NSWolves] Decision
 
Everyone still happy with the decision to sack Mick? 
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!
 

  _____  

CAUTION: This message is intended only for the named addressee. It is
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited and may be
unlawful. By opening any attachment, you agree that the Munich Re Group will
not be liable for any loss resulting from viruses or other defects. Any
views in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the
sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the
Munich Re Group. The Munich Re Group will not be liable for any action
taken, or omitted to be taken, in reliance upon the contents of this
message.
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!
 
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!
 
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!
 
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!
 
-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!

-- 
Boo! Curbishley out!

Reply via email to